66

For the Earl of Lonsdale in his Memoir, not only confirms Burnet, Lonsdale's Mem. p. 4. as to the profusion of the Commons, but also vouches the authenticity of the message before mentioned, by quoting the latter part of it. The words of the Memoir are," And therefore in the matter of the revenue, he did not ask so much as the Parliament did give. So "that they prevented not only his expectations but his wishes; insomuch "that they laid so great an imposition upon tobacco and sugars, as "in the apprehensions of many men would destroy the plantations, "that subsist by those commodities; and notwithstanding that the "marchants from Bristol and other places, were heard att the bar "of the hous, and by very rational discourses made the matter but "too plain yet t'was to no purpose; some men's private interest, "other mens willingnesse to endear the King as much as possible "makeing them deaf to all arguments, and besides the King's promise, "that if it was ffound inconvenient to the trade, he would remitt "the imposition, was of so much prevalence, that the matter was "allowed no further debate." Before Mr. Rose had made so serious a charge upon the Bishop, he ought to have well examined the evidence on which it was founded. The Earl of Lonsdale's testimony is quite decisive, he was, as Mr. Rose supposes Burnet to have been upon the spot, and was active in all the measures which were going on; he could not be mistaken, and there can be no doubt, notwithstanding the omission in the Journals, that the message was delivered. In this instance Bishop Burnet's History, standing single and unauthenticated by any corroborating circumstance, as it did for many years, and as Mr. Rose conceived it to do when he wrote, has proved to be more to be depended upon than the records, as Mr. Rose calls them, produced to contradict it.

2. The second mis-statement is that the alarm of Monmouth's landing was brought to London, "where upon the general report and "belief of the thing, an act of attainder passed both houses in one

day; some small opposition being made by the Earl of Anglesey, "because the evidence did not seem clear enough for so severe a 4. sentence, which was grounded on the notoriety of the thing." Mr.

Com. Journ. ix. p. 735.

Lords' Journ. xiv. p. 39.

Com. Journ. ix. p. 737. Lords' Journ. xiv. p. 42. 44.

Rose denies that the act passed on a general belief, and was grounded on the notoriety of the thing, because "the King on the "13th of June, communicated to the two houses a letter from Alford "the Mayor of Lyme, giving a particular account of the Duke's landing there, and taking possession of the Town." Thus, according to some new system of consistent reasoning, though hearsay stories ought not to be admitted in history, a letter sent to the King, and by him laid before both Houses of Parliament, may be received as sufficient evidence of the facts mentioned in that letter, in order to criminate and even attaint an individual. Bishop Burnet might be of a contrary opinion, and conceive according to the rules by which the municipal tribunals of the country regulate their proceedings, that the person who wrote the letter ought himself to have been produced, and that in his absence what he wrote ought to be treated as no evidence at all. But upon referring to the Journals, the Bishop's account of this act will be found perfectly correct. Upon Saturday the 13th of June, 1685, the King laid before both of the Houses of Parliament the letter from the Mayor of Lyme, giving an account of Monmouth's landing there, and acquainted the Commons that two messengers, who brought the letter had been examined upon oath at the Council Table. The Commons examined the messengers who testified "the truth of the matter," but the Lords did not. Both Houses agreed to address the King, and the address of the Lords thanked him for imparting the intelligence. The letter of the Mayor might be sufficient to authorize an address, but not a bill of attainder, a sort of prerogative trial, in which the legislature by an extraordinary interference, removes the consideration of an offence from the common tribunals, and takes it upon itself. The Commons, having voted the address, ordered a bill to be brought in for the attainder of the Duke of Monmouth, without any further examination of witnesses. On Monday the 15th the bill was read three times, and passed, and sent up to the Lords, where it was also read three times on the same day, without the production of any evidence, and passed; and on the next day, Tuesday the 16th of June, it received the royal assent. These circumstances must have been well known to Mr.

Rose, and from his having omitted to mention the examination of the two messengers by the Commons, we presume that as their depositions are not preserved in the Journals, he thinks they do not affect the question, and chuses to rest his objection upon the production of the letter only. He conceives the same evidence, as he stiles it, to have been laid before both houses, and the only difference between their proceedings to be that the Lords were occupied with the bill a few hours later than the Commons. In this view of the subject, besides the answers before alluded to, that the letter was no more than hearsay, and not admissible at all in evidence, we learn, that in fact, as a foundation for the act of attainder, that letter was never read. It was merely, to use an expression in the address of the Lords, the imparting of intelligence, and the act passed afterwards must have been founded upon general report and belief, and the notoriety of the thing, as the Bishop has described it. The Bishop does not stand single and uncorroborated in his opinion of the manner in which this business was conducted, for the Earl of Lonsdale, who was at that time an assiduous Memoirs, p.64. Member of the House of Commons, ends his memoir with an expression, which shews that he conceived the charge to be well founded as far as the House of Commons was concerned, "they" says he, "passed a bill of attainder against the Duke of Monmouth, without "examining witnesses in one day," and he could not be mistaken about this fact. Burnet says that the Earl of Anglesey opposed this bill in the Lords, because he thought the evidence not sufficient to authorize so severe a sentence. This leads to a suspicion that the Bishop was perfectly aware of what Mr. Rose triumphs in producing, namely the letter of the Mayor, for a noble Lord did oppose the bill on account of a defect in the evidence, and the advocates for it probably resorted to the notoriety of the facts, as the best justification of the measure. It is evident that the Earl of Lonsdale considers the examination of the two messengers by the Commons, to have had no relation whatever to the bill, and it is also manifest that the essential requisites of justice were not attended to, no specific charge was made the foundation of the attainder, no evidence was required of the guilt of the culprit, no witnesses examined to prove it. We may therefore

Stat. Tr. v. p. 125.

Lords' Journ. xiv. p. 115. Ibid. p. 116.

beg of Mr. Rose to disclose any other ground, upon which the proceedings of either House can be supported or defended, but that which he objects to because suggested by Bishop Burnet, namely, the general report and belief, the notoriety of the thing. It may be readily conceived that the mode, in which this act was passed, occasioned much conversation at the time, more especially if what Sir Edward Seymour said in a debate on Sir John Fenwick's bill is true, that this bill against the Duke of Monmouth was the first bill of attainder, which had ever originated in the House of Commons, where witnesses could not be examined upon oath.

3. The last supposed instance of a mis statement by Bishop Burnet is taken from his account of what passed in the House of Lords in convention after the abdication of James the Second, respecting the va cancy of the throne, and its being filled by the Prince and Princess of Orange. The objections are three in number, and none of them very important. 1. Burnet says many protestations passed in the House, in the progress of the debate; 2. the House was very full, about 120 were present; and 3. against the final vote by which the Prince and Princess were declared King and Queen, a great protestation was made. To the first, Mr. Rose answers that there were only three protests, but to this we shall observe that 'many' is a word of loose and indefinite signification, and three protests, if not four, arising out of one subject might appear to the Bishop to authorize the expression, though Mr. Rose may be of a different opinion. To the second, Mr. Rose truly says the most important discussions took place, on the 31st of January, the 4th and 6th February, and states the numbers present to have been 100, 111, and 112. In one of these numbers is a mistake of importance only as shewing, that the propensity to blunder so often complained of, extends even to figures and calculations, for on the 4th of February there were present only 109 Lords, not 111. A similar mistake occurs in his alledging that "the greatest number of Whigs who protested "were 36;" for on the same 4th of February 39 signed a protest. The Bishop has not been dealt quite fairly with in the citation made from his work, for this sentence which introduces it in the original is

omitted in the quotation.

821.

"I have not pursued the relation of the Burnet, i. p. "debates according to the order in which they passed, which will be "found in the Journal of both houses during the convention." This is a material passage for the vindication of the Bishop, his object is to give an account not of the debates and transactions of each day, but a general view of the whole, and when he says "about 120 were present," he does not mean that so many attended, upon any one day, but on one or other of the several days during which the debates alluded to were going on. Mr. Rose's enumeration, therefore, of those who were present upon each of the days of the three most important debates, will not shew the Bishop to be wrong, indeed it can have no bearing upon the question. Upon a cursory examination of the Journal, there appear to have been present on some one or other of the following days, January the 29th, 30th, 31st, February the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th, 117 different Lords; so that, Bishop Burnet's assertion being understood to mean, that about 120 were present at some one or other of the debates is probably correct. 3. Mr. Rose asserts that there certainly was no protest against the final vote, that the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. Lords' Journ. On the 6th of February, the Lords resolved to agree with the Com- xiv. p. 119. mons that James had abdicated, and the throne thereby was vacant, Immediately after that vote, the question that the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen passed also in the affirmative. In the Journal, leave is entered for Lords to protest after each of these votes; and it appears that 38 Lords did enter their names as protesting against the first of them. Immediately after the second, which is the final vote alluded to, is this entry," Leave given to any "Lords to enter their dissents; and, accordingly, these Lords follow"ing do enter their dissents by subscribing their names;" but no names are subscribed. If we had here only the authority of Bishop Burnet opposed to that of the Journals, recollecting that in a similar instance recently under consideration, he turned out to be right, it would be too much to conclude that he must be wrong. He tells us that he had a great share in the management of these debates, of course we must presume him to be well acquainted with the fact he narrates; and that if he is not correct he is guilty of a gross mistake,